BRAJA GOPAL DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Facts of the O.A. bereft of unnecessary details, are that the applicant who was an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in Bhadrak district retired on superannuation on 31.1.09 (Annexure-1). His provisional pension was fixed on 13.3.09 (Annexure-2). While the applicant was waiting for his final pension, Memo No. 626/RO dtd. 25.4.09, (Annexure-3 series) and Memo No. 629/RO dt. 25.4.09 were communicated to the applicant threatening withdrawal of pension as per Rule 7(1) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, as two departmental proceeding vide No. 12 dtd. 27.9.02 and No. 13 dtd. 31.10.02 had been initiated against him allegedly on the same cause of action i.e. absence from duty and failure to submit case diaries in some cases investigated by him, and findings submitted. Final punishment could not be imposed as the applicant retired on 31.1.09 before finalization of the aforesaid Disciplinary Proceedings. He accordingly filed his show-cause reply at Annexure-5 and 7. In this O.A. he has mainly prayed for setting aside Memos No. 626/RO dtd. 25.4.09 and 629/RO dtd. 25.4.09, and releasing his final pension. Counter dtd. 7.7.10 has been filed in this case stating that Bhadrak dist. proceedings No. 12 of 2002 and No. 13 of 2002 were pending against the applicant at the time of his retirement on 11.11.2009. After retirement of the applicant, show cause notices with copies of findings were sent to the applicant, and after receipt of his reply, the matter was referred to the State Police Headquarters as the Disciplinary Authority, i.e. S.P. Bhadrak, does not have the power to pass orders against a retired Govt. servant. It is also clarified that whereas Bhadrak Disciplinary Proceedings No. 12/02 was drawn up for not making over charge of pending cases and case diaries and charge of Moto Police Out Post, the second Disciplinary Proceeding i.e. Bhadrak district Disciplinary Proceeding No. 13/2002 was drawn up for unauthorized absence. It is also clarified that the applicant was placed under suspension with effect from 10.6.2002 and consequent upon such suspension Bhadrak, district proceeding No. 13/02 drawn up against him.

(2.) A rejoinder has been filed claiming higher pay and provisional pension due to enhancement of pay as per ORSP Rules, 2008. It is also pointed out that Rule 6(2) 5 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 has not been followed, and that double-jeopardy has been caused as both the departmental proceedings are allegedly based on the same set of facts.

(3.) A counter to rejoinder has also been filed mainly reiterating the points already raised, particularly about delay in investigation of several cognizable cases on the part of the applicant and his failure to submit case diaries.